See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224560830

Underwater mine detection using symbolic pattern analysis of sidescan sonar

images

Conference Paper  in  Proceedings of the American Control Conference · July 2009

DOI: 10.1109/ACC.2009.5160102 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
26 1,051

5 authors, including:

Chinmay Rao Kushal Mukherjee

13 PUBLICATIONS   226 CITATIONS   
Pennsylvania State University
40 PUBLICATIONS   549 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Shalabh Gupta Asok Ray

University of Connecticut Pennsylvania State University
116 PUBLICATIONS   1,666 CITATIONS    635 PUBLICATIONS   9,606 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Data- Driven Prognostics, Diagnostics and Control of Cyber-Physical Systems. View project

An HMM algorithm for regime classification in combustion systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S. Phoha on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2009 American Control Conference
Hyatt Regency Riverfront, St. Louis, MO, USA
June 10-12, 2009
Underwater Mine Detection using Symbolic Pattern
Analysis of Sidescan Sonar Images⋆
Chinmay Rao Kushal Mukherjee Shalabh Gupta
crr164@psu.edu kum162@psu.edu szg107@psu.edu
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Abstract— This paper presents symbolic pattern analysis of
sidescan sonar images for detection of mines and mine-like
objects in the underwater environment. For robust feature
extraction, sonar images are symbolized by partitioning the
data sets based on the information generated from the ground
truth. A binary classifier is constructed for identification of
detected objects into mine-like and non-mine-like categories.
The pattern analysis algorithm has been tested on sonar data
sets in the form of images, which were provided by the
Naval Surface Warfare Center. The algorithm is designed for
real-time execution on limited-memory commercial-of-the-shelf
platforms, and is capable of detecting seabed-bottom objects
and vehicle-induced image artifacts.
Index Terms— Symbolic Dynamics, Pattern Recognition,
Mine Countermeasures
I. I NTRODUCTION
Rapid advancement of modern engineering technology has
led to development of increasingly portable manned and
unmanned platforms for mine countermeasure (M CM ) op-
erations. In particular, unmanned undersea vehicles (U U V )
provide enhanced speed and improved search efficiency in
M CM operations. These vehicles are equipped with ad-
vanced sensing devices, including sidescan sonar imaging
systems, to search a target area for detection of mines and
mine-like objects in the underwater environment. However,
this paper makes no distinction between mines and mine-
like objects because they are both represented by the same
features in the sonar image; hence, both mines and mine-
like objects are simply referred to as mines in the sequel.
Once a mine is detected, more precise measurement (possibly
using other sensors) and analysis is required to distinguish
between mines and mine-like objects that might have been
falsely identified as mines. The latter task is a topic of future
research and is not addressed in this paper.
The current state-of-the-art M CM techniques involve
deployment of assets that perform sequential operations of
detection, classification, and neutralization [6]. For M CM
operations, side-scan sonar systems are typically used for
⋆ This work has been supported in part by the U.S. Office of Naval
Research under Grant Nos. N00014-07-1-0288 and N00014-08-1-380 and
by the U.S. Army Research Office (ARO) under Grant No. W911NF-07-
1-0376. The authors would like to acknowledge Naval Surface Warfare
Center - Panama City Division, Panama City, Florida for providing the
data used in this publication. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring agencies.
978-1-4244-4524-0/09/$25.00 ©2009 AACC 5416
FrC08.2
Asok Ray Shashi Phoha
axr2@psu.edu sxp26@psu.edu
efficient imaging of large areas of the sea floor. These devices
generate a monochromatic mapping of seabed-bottom objects
and vehicle-induced image artifacts.
The traditional approach to mine detection problem is to
simply assign a threshold to the mapped features, based
on the premise that the object should be brighter (i.e.,
have a stronger reflected signal) than the background of
a sonar image. This approach works well for a relatively
featureless background; however, a textured background may
encounter many false positive mine locations. Recent mine
detection methods have made use of advanced signal pro-
cessing techniques. For example, Reed et al. [16] have used
Dempster-Shafer information to classify mines for reduction
of false alarms; and Dura et al. [4] have proposed a data-
adaptive algorithm to eliminate the need for a priori training
of M CM missions. Improvements to traditional Bayesian
detection methods, including usage of geometric and sta-
tistical properties of objects have been proposed by Calder
et al. [1]. Maussang et al. [9] [10] have applied adaptive
data thresholding for object detection as well as statistical
methods that do not require the presence of a shadow for
mine detection, which is useful for detecting buried mines.
Recently, Ray and coworkers [5], [13], [15] have de-
veloped a pattern identification technique called Symbolic
Dynamic Pattern Analysis, which compresses large data
sets into pattern vectors of much lower dimension. The
underlying concept is built upon the principles of multiple
disciplines including Statistical Mechanics [11], Symbolic
Dynamics [7], Statistical Pattern Recognition [3], and Infor-
mation Theory [2]. The symbolic pattern analysis algorithm
has been experimentally validated for real-time execution
in diverse applications, including electronic circuits [14]
and fatigue damage monitoring in polycrystalline alloys [5],
and robot signature analysis [8]. This technique has been
shown to be superior for pattern classification to Bayesian
filtering, Neural networks and other statistical methods in
terms of speed of execution, memory requirements, and
robust detection in the presence of noise [14].
This paper proposes symbolic pattern analysis of sidescan
sonar images for detection of underwater mines. The pro-
posed method has been trained and validated on a set of
sonar data in the form of images collected by Naval Surface
Warfare Center. Section II presents data formatting and a
geometric model for pattern analysis. Section III provides a
 UUV / Source
A
B C B A
C
C B
Fig. 1. Sonar wave reflections from a mine
brief review of symbolic dynamics, space partitioning meth-
ods, and construction of a Markov machine for development
of the mine detection algorithm. Section IV constructs the
classifier and the sliding window model to scan images.
Section V shows the results of executing the pattern analysis
algorithm on a test data set. Section VI concludes the paper
with recommended directions for future work.
II. DATA F ORMATTING FOR M INE D ETECTION
With the objective of formulating a mine detection algo-
rithm, this section presents formatting of the sidescan sonar
data sets that are structured in the form of images. Ground-
truth information is available for a set of images acquired
by a U U V about the location of mines. The ensemble of
data sets is partitioned into a training set of 100 images
and a test set of 100 images for further analysis. Parameters
required for the application of symbolic dynamics, such as
alphabet size are chosen based on the ground-truth statistics.
A geometric model, similar to [1] has been used for feature
extraction to detect and classify mines in a sonar trace. This
model is used in the training set to obtain the distributions
of the various regions of a mine. A sequence of tests is
determined to characterize a mine according to the identified
distributions.
A. Geometric modeling of mines
Based on the principles of sidescan sonar operation and
properties of sound wave propagation in the oceans, a mine
is characterized by three distinct regions that correspond to a
bright spot, a shadow and the clutter around both bright spot
and shadow.The principle of mine detection using sidescan
sonars is illustrated in Fig. 1.
A mine is usually made of a denser material than other
seabed objects; hence, the reflection off a mine is usually
much stronger than those from its surroundings. There is also
a sonar shadow due to the structure of the mine protruding
off the sea bed; this shadow is a very useful indicator for
distinguishing mines from the background features. There-
fore, a mine usually appears as a bright object; and since the
mines under consideration are placed on the seabed, there
is a shadow region that exists adjacent to a mine in the
direction away from the sidescan sonar receiver. There are
A
15
Mine Clutter
Shadow Clutter
4
2
Shadow
Mine
3
3
Shadow Clutter
4
4
5
Mine Clutter
Fig. 2. Geometric model for mine detection
also clutter regions around the mine and the shadow. This
clutter region around mine and its shadow is an important
feature to distinguish mines from larger objects on the sea
bed which also cast shadows behind them (e.g., large rocky
structures on the seabed).
Therefore, the geometric model for mine detection is
formulated by taking into consideration the following four
distinct regions: (a)Main body of the mine, characterized
by a bright spot (b)Shadow of the mine, characterized by
a dark region (c)Clutter around the mine(d)Clutter around
the shadow.
In general, mines are spatially isolated from each other
and are accompanied by clutters. Figure 1 shows the sonar
ray reflection model along with a typical mine present on
the sea bed. The model for mine detection is parameterized
based on the following aspects: (i) geometric properties of
the expected objects, (ii) size parameters estimated from
the objects present in the ground truth, and (iii) physical
understanding of the relative importance of the various
components of the geometric model.
Model parameterization reduces the mine detection pro-
cess to comparison of various statistics generated from
ground-truth analysis. The model along with its parameters
is exhibited in Fig. 2 that displays the number of pixels
allocated to each region in the image, where each pixel
corresponds to an area of ∼ 3×6 cm2 .
III. S YMBOLIC PATTERN A NALYSIS
This section presents the underlying concepts and salient
features of symbolic pattern analysis method. While the
details of this method have been reported in previous pub-
lications for one dimensional time series data analysis [13],
[15], this paper extends the concepts of symbolic pattern
analysis for two-dimensional data (i.e., an image) analysis
and presents an application for detection of undersea mines
in sonar images.
5417
 histogram correspond to the symbol c (i.e., dark pixels).
A majority of the remaining (i.e., moderately dark) pixels
corresponding to the symbol b belong to the clutter region.
Thus, the entire image is then symbolized and represented by
a two dimensional array of symbols belonging to the set Σ =
{a, b, c}. This partitioning scheme enables robust detection
of mines with a high probability of detection and a very low
probability of false alarms as discussed in the results section.
Further, this symbolization greatly reduces the amount of
memory required for any processing. The next subsection
explains the method of feature extraction using the geometric
model for mine detection.
Fig. 3. Histogram of sonar wave reflections for mines, shadows and
clutter. The distribution of pixel intensities in the regions of mine-clutter and B. Feature Extraction
shadow-clutter showed similar trends, therefore, they have been combined
together in a single histogram of clutter region. A finite state Markov machine is now constructed, where
A. Construction of the Partitioning Scheme the set of machine states is isomorphic to the symbol alpha-
bet Σ [15]. As there are three symbols in Σ, the dimension
Two important parameters need to be determined for of the state space is also 3. Symbol a corresponds to a bright
successful partitioning of data. The first parameter is the pixel state in the sonar image, while symbol c corresponds
alphabet size |Σ| and the second is the vector of the partition to a dark pixel state that may be a part of a shadow. Symbol
segment boundaries. In this application of mine detection, b denotes a ‘mid-level’ pixel state.
the essential robust features that need to be preserved are A region B in the image space represents one of the
the bright reflections from the front of an object protruding three regions in the geometric model, i.e, the mine region,
above the sea bed, and the long shadow that follows the the shadow region, and the clutter region. The Markov
object. Apart from this information, clutter is an important assumption allows construction of the state probability vector
feature that has been used in the pattern analysis presented in p that is chosen to be the feature vector for a given bounded
this paper. It is observed that only three symbols are sufficient T
region B. The elements of p , [pa pb pc ] are calculated
to characterize the features of interest. Figure 3 shows by frequency counting as:
histograms of density functions for mine, shadow, and clutter
regions. The histograms depict the number of pixels vs pixel N (σi )
pi = P rob (σi ∈ Σ|B) ≈ P
N (σj ) , i = a, b, c (1)
j∈{a,b,c}
intensity for each region. These histograms are generated
from the a priori known ground-truth information about the where N (•) is the count of • in B.
exact location of mines from the training data set of 100 The construction of the feature vector p follows the
sonar images. The histograms for the three regions are clearly sliding block code [7], where sliding of the geometric model
separated. Therefore, a distinct single symbol in the alphabet (described in Section II) along the sonar image is depicted in
Σ is assigned to each of the three features corresponding to Fig. 4. For every pixel location (i, j), the geometric model is
mine, shadow and the clutter. The information gained by constructed around that pixel, such that (i, j) lies at the center
increasing the alphabet size is found to be too little to offset point of the mine region. In this way, the feature vector is
the additional computation. A point to note from the clutter generated for each region of the geometric model. Therefore,
histogram in Fig. 3 is that a small neighborhood around the for any pixel location (i, j) on the sonar image, the following
mine region causes more bright spots from the mine to be four feature vectors (see Fig. 2) are generated.
relegated to the clutter region. ¤T
1) PM (i, j) = pM M M
£
a (i, j) pb (i, j) pc (i, j) is con-
The next important consideration is selection of segment structed from the mine region.
boundaries of the partition. Traditional partitioning tech- ¤T
2) PS (i, j) = pSa (i, j) pSb (i, j) pSc (i, j) is constructed
£
niques (e.g., uniform partitioning and maximum entropy
from the shadow£ region.
partitioning [13]) may not adequately capture the details ¤T
3) PM C (i, j) = pM a
C
(i, j) pM
b
C
(i, j) pM
c
C
(i, j) is
of mine patterns; and conventional data-driven partitioning
constructed from the clutter region around the mine.
methods lead to a large alphabet size. This paper makes use ¤T
4) PSC (i, j) = pSC SC SC
£
of the statistical model information from the three histograms a (i, j) pb (i, j) pc (i, j) is con-
in Fig. 3. Partitioning is constructed by assigning symbol structed from the clutter region around the shadow.
a to high intensity pixels ranging from 180 to 255 on
IV. C LASSIFIER C ONSTRUCTION
the gray scale; similarly, symbol b is assigned to medium
intensity pixels ranging from 56 to 179; and symbol c is This section presents construction of a classifier for iden-
assigned to low intensity pixels ranging from 0 to 55. As seen tification of mines and non-mine-like objects. Four scalar
from Fig. 3, approximately 97% of the pixels in the mine parameters, η M , η S , η M C , η SC , (that are dependent on the
histogram correspond to the symbol a (i.e., bright pixels); pixel location (i, j)) are derived from the four feature vectors
similarly, approximately 89% of the pixels in the shadow at each pixel location as follows.

5418
 ^LJŵďŽůŝnjĞĚŝŵĂŐĞ

D ^ D ^
Sliding window
D ^ D ^

D ^ D ^

&ĞĂƚƵƌĞdžƚƌĂĐƚŝŽŶ

ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ
WD W^ WD W^ WD W^ WD W^
ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ ͮ
Dʹ DŝŶĞ
^ʹ ^ŚĂĚŽǁ
ůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ
Dʹ DŝŶĞůƵƚƚĞƌ
^ʹ ^ŚĂĚŽǁůƵƚƚĞƌ D/E EKdD/E
Fig. 4. Symbolic dynamics-based mine detection

1
M
M
η (i, j) , [1 0 0]P (i, j) (2) 0.9
S
S
η (i, j) , [0 0 1]P (i, j) (3) 0.8

Probability of Detection
η M C (i, j) , [0 1 1]PM C (i, j) (4) 0.7

SC 0.6
η SC
(i, j) , [1 1 0]P (i, j) (5)
0.5
Here, η M corresponds to the fraction of bright pixels (state
0.4
a) found in the mine cluster region. Typically, for a mine,
0.3
η M is expected to exceed a certain threshold. Similarly, η S
corresponds to the fraction of dark pixels (state c) in the 0.2

shadow region and is expected to exceed a threshold for a 0.1

mine. In the clutter region around the mine, η M C represents
the combined fraction of dark and ’mid-level’ pixels (states c
and b); therefore, η M C is expected to be large around a mine
implying that a mine clutter must be darker as compared to
the mine. Similarly, in the clutter region around the shadow,
η SC represents the combined fraction of bright and ’mid-
level’ pixels (states a and b); therefore, η SC is expected to
be large around a shadow implying that a shadow clutter
must be relatively less dark as compared to the shadow.
A threshold-based classification rule is formulated to iden-
tify a mine from the sonar data sets in the form of images.
Given appropriately chosen scalar thresholds λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , and
λ4 , the following conditions must be satisfied for a pixel
(i, j) to be classified as part of a mine.
M
• η (i, j) ≥ λ1
S
• η (i, j) ≥ λ2
• η
MC
(i, j) ≥ λ3 and η SC (i, j) ≥ λ4
The above four scalar thresholds, (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , and λ4 ),
are chosen based on the receiver operating characteristics
(ROC) [12] to yield different choices of probability of de-
tection (PD ) and false alarm rate (F AR), which are defined
in terms of percentage of correctly detected mines and the
number of mines falsely detected per image, respectively.
(Note: The size of an image is 1000 × 512 pixels.)
A. Receiver Operating Characteristics
A sliding window method is used to implement the geo-
metric model in Section II and the classifier described above.
0
0 5 10 15 20
False alarm rate per image
Fig. 5. Receiver Operating Characteristics for Symbolic Dynamics based
detection
For each pixel in the image, a model is constructed, as shown
in Fig. 4. Assuming that the pixel under consideration is
at the center of the mine region, the four feature vectors
PM , PS , PM C and PSC are generated. Then, the classifi-
cation scheme is applied and a binary decision is made to
determine whether the pixel location belongs to a potential
mine. A binary number of 1 or 0 is assigned to each pixel
of the image based on the classification as a mine or non-
mine-like object, respectively.
To construct the receiver operating characteristics (ROC),
a test data set consisting of 100 images is considered.
These images consist of various textured backgrounds, with
different types of sea-bed objects and vehicle-induced image
artifacts. The images are in the range of 0 to 255 on the gray
scale. Each of the four thresholds (i.e., λ1 , λ2 , λ3 and λ4 ) are
varied from 0 to 1 in steps of 0.1 and the pattern analysis
algorithm is executed over the entire set of test data. The
number of false alarms, and the number of correct detections
are counted in each threshold parameter combination. The
ROC plot is constructed by joining the outermost points on

5419

the plot of probability of detection (PD ) versus false alarm
rate (F AR) per image as shown in Fig. 5. For subsequent
analysis, the chosen thresholds (λ1 = 0.8, λ2 = 0,7, λ3 = 0.4
and λ4 = 0.4) gives a probability of detection of 92% and
1.5 false alarms per image (or 900m2 )
V. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
This section presents the results generated upon execution
of the pattern analysis algorithm on one hundred images from
the test data set that is different from the training data set
used to generate the partition. As an example, four of these
images are shown in Fig. 6, where the results of detection
are shown in the right hand side of each plate from (a) to
(d).
Four representative images are shown in Fig. 6, each show-
ing different levels of background noise, and sea-bed clutter.
A representative set of threshold values is chosen to yield a
high detection probability with an acceptable false alarm rate.
An appropriate operating point is chosen on the ROC curve
based on the premise that a missed detection costs much
higher than a false alarm. Tests show that the algorithm is
capable of detecting mines in a high concentration of sea-bed
clutter, including mines buried under vehicular artifacts. The
algorithm has been executed on the entire set of test data
with the same values of representative thresholds; Table I
lists false alarms and successful detections. With alternative
choices of operating points on the ROC curves, the mine
detection probability can be increased at the expense of
increased false alarm rate as a trade-off between Type I and
Type II errors.
VI. S UMMARY, C ONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This paper presents a data-driven symbolic dynamic based
method of mine detection for the purpose of mine counter
measures. The use of a template based method allows for
the introduction of prior knowledge. The use of Symbolic
Dynamics improves noise robustness, and enables the real
time implementation of the whole algorithm.
On a sonar data set in the form of images, a template
was constructed and symbolic dynamic parameters were
determined. A ground truth was provided, which enabled
the construction of alphabet and partition segment locations.
The algorithm was then tested on a different test set of
images on which the probability of detection was ∼91.5%
with an average of ∼1.25 false alarms in a 1024 × 512
pixel area (approximately 2 square kilometers). Several test
images were shown, with varying degrees of noise and sea-
bed clutter, and the algorithm was shown to function well in
all conditions.
A key aspect to the performance of the proposed mine
detection method is the construction of the geometric model.
Different regions in the model are carefully chosen to match
the sizes of the objects to be detected. A conservative
estimate is made on all counts so that the smallest possible
objects can be detected. However, even with these conser-
vative estimates that enable a high detection probability,
a relatively low rate of false alarms is still unavoidable.
5420
TABLE I
R ESULTS OF RUNNING S YMBOLIC DYNAMIC BASED AND A
LOG - LIKELIHOOD BASED PATTERN ANALYSIS ON A TEST DATA SET
Description Value
Number of Images Analyzed 100
Number of Mines (Ground Truth) 100
Probability of Detection (PD ) ∼91.5%
False alarm rate (F AR) per image ∼1.5
Tests based on real-life data show that a high percentage
of mines is detected with a low false alarm rate. However,
a shortcoming of the proposed method is its inability to
detect objects that are smaller than the smallest object in
the training set. This is evident from the ROC curve that
the probability of detection can never reach 1 because some
mines do not fit the nature of the model template.
The major advantages of the proposed pattern analysis al-
gorithm for underwater mine detection are delineated below.
1) Performance of the pattern analysis algorithm is robust
with respect to locations of the segment boundaries of
the partition. The important aspect is that the partitions
must correspond to the three characteristic features,
namely, mine, shadow and clutter.
2) The algorithm is computationally efficient in terms
of execution time and memory requirements as a
consequence of a small alphabet and a small number of
states in the Markov machine of the algorithm. As such
the entire algorithm can be programmed and powered
on a small microprocessor on-board a U U V .
3) In contrast to traditional Bayesian methods such as
the likelihood-ratio-test, the symbolic pattern analysis
does not require a priori knowledge of probability
distribution for characterizing mines and non-mine-like
objects. Specifically, the proposed algorithm is robust
even if the unknown distributions are multi-modal.
Further theoretical and experimental research is necessary
before the proposed algorithm can be considered for imple-
mentation in the ocean environment. While there are many
such issues, the following topics are under active research.
• Development of advanced measurement techniques and
algorithms to distinguish between mines and mine-like
objects that might have been falsely identified as mines;
• Testing under real-life scenarios that include varying
bathymetric properties, various ocean depths and dif-
ferent sea states;
• Investigation of measurement test techniques in areas of
higher water turbulence, which are susceptible to false
alarms;
• Testing of the algorithm performance for simultaneous
enhancement of successful detection and reduction of
false alarms through additional measurements such as
multiple scanning from from different angles;
• Enhancement of algorithm performance through usage
of flexible templates (e.g., varying shadow lengths).
 Mine Like Objects
Original Image Symbolic Analysis
(a) Symbolic Analysis for a clean image
Few False Alarms
Mine Like Object
Original Image Symbolic Analysis
(c) Symbolic Analysis for a noisy image
Fig. 6. Representative images from test data set
R EFERENCES
[1] B.R. Calder, L.M. Linnett, and D.R. Carmichael, Bayesian approach
to object detection in sidescan sonar, IEE Proceedings -Vision, Image
and Signal Processing 145 (1998), no. 3, 221–228.
[2] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of information theory, first
ed., Wiley Interscience, New York, 1991.
[3] R. O. Duda, P. E. Hart, and D. G. Stork, Pattern classification, 2nd
edition ed., Wiley Interscience, New York, NY, 2001.
[4] E. Dura, Y. Zhang, X. Liao, G.J. Dobeck, and L. Carin, Active learning
for detection of mine-like objects in side-scan sonar imagery, IEEE
Journal of Oceanic Engineering 30 (2003), no. 2, 360–371.
[5] S. Gupta, A. Ray, and E. Keller, Fatigue damage monitoring by
ultrasonic measurements: A symbolic time series analysis approach,
International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007), no. 6, 1100–1114.
[6] D. Li, K.D. Wong, Y.H. Hu, and A.M. Sayeed, Detection, classifica-
tion, and tracking of targets, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine (2002),
17–29.
[7] D. Lind and M. Marcus, An introduction to symbolic dynamics and
coding, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[8] G. Mallapragada, I. Chattopadhyay, and A. Ray, Automated behavior
recognition in mobile robots using symbolic dynamic filtering, Journal
of Systems and Control Engineering (2008).
[9] F. Maussang, J. Chanussot, A. Hetet, and M. Amate, Meanstandard
deviation representation of sonar images for echo detection: Applica-
5421
View publication stats
Mine Like Object
Original Image Symbolic Analysis
(b) Symbolic Analysis for a slightly noisy image
Mine Like Object
Original Image Symbolic Analysis
(d) Symbolic Analysis for a very noisy image
tion to sas images, Oceanic Engineering, IEEE Journal of 32 (2007),
no. 4, 956–970.
[10] F. Maussang, M. Rombaut, J. Chanussot, A. Htet, and M. Amate,
Fusion of local statistical parameters for buried underwater mine
detection in sonar imaging, EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal
Processing (2008), no. 876092, 19.
[11] R.K. Pathria, Statistical mechanics, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, UK, 1996.
[12] V. Poor, An introduction to signal detection and estimation, 2nd ed.,
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, 1988.
[13] V. Rajagopalan and A.Ray, Symbolic time series analysis via wavelet-
based partitioning, Signal Processing 86 (2006), no. 11, 3309–3320.
[14] C. Rao, A. Ray, S. Sarkar, and M. Yasar, Review and comparative eval-
uation of symbolic dynamic filtering for detection of anomaly patterns,
Signal, Image, and Video Processing (2008), DOI 10.1007/s11760-
008-0061-8.
[15] A. Ray, Symbolic dynamic analysis of complex systems for anomaly
detection, Signal Processing 84 (2004), no. 7, 1115–1130.
[16] S. Reed, Y. Petillot, and J. Bell, Automated approach to classification
of mine-like objects in sidescan sonar using highlights and shadow
information, IEE Proc.-Radar Sonar Navig. 151 (2004), no. 1, 90–
105.